Issue 12 (emailed version), Wednesday November 8, 2000
Made in New Zealand - twice winners of the America's Cup
Made in New Zealand - twice winners of the America's Cup
It is now time to return to the idea that some people are simply born with potentialities for leadership
Nigel Nicholson,
Executive Instinct:
Managing the Human Animal
in the Information Age.
Executive Instinct:
Managing the Human Animal
in the Information Age.
Welcome to issue 12 of EDGE FIRST, an email magazine dedicated to making you a better leader, by providing:
- provocative thinking about what it means to be a leader
- the tools, techniques and best-practices that drive leadership improvement
Increasingly, we'll lean towards the personal, and away from the corporate – delivering on our promise of big ideas in a small package, but with a clear focus on total quality you.
In this issue
START
The soft stuff is hard - organizational culture
WarmUp – Hard-wired hunter-gatherers
Ten minute MasterClass – Workplace bads: Quota-driven behaviour
Quick case study – Quality management trends in the UK
Looking after YOU – Stress in the workplace
To access Portable Document Format (.pdf) files you'll need Adobe's® free Acrobat® Reader.
Start
If we're serious here about total quality you, about leaning towards an individually-focused, coaching-oriented view of leadership, then we're going to be talking mostly about the soft stuff. And everyone knows (let's not mess about with equivocation) that the soft stuff is hard, right? One of the more serious criticisms of balanced scorecards is that they make it too easy to focus just on the hard stuff – the easily-measured, spread-sheetable, bottom-line information – and side-line the soft areas.
One of those soft areas is organizational culture. Lots written about it. High fashion in some of the new-economy magazines. Absolutely critical to the effective functioning of any organisation, whatever it does. But how often is 'culture' the subject of serious discussion in your workplace? Taken for granted, isn't it?
Here's a clip from a recent post on trdev online, a training and development list: >> One of the things I was brought on board for is to create the internal organizational culture. I am testing a model I have developed, and my sense is that one of the key elements of this is to agree on a set of organizational values and build them into everything we do from the start <<
A few people on the list (which seems to be big, active and thickly-peopled with highly opiniated commentators – your editor is a newbie) reacted to these thoughts. Example: James E Mason wrote (and I'll summarise a wee bit), “Let's take the last part first. I fully agree that teasing out … culture can be accomplished by determining organisational values, but the model is backwards. No one can CREATE a culture; internal or external, organisational or societal. Culture qua CULTURE is created in a nexus that is formed by the organisation's members.
Culture, according to James E, is continuously renegotiated, redefined, and restructured. It's fine to talk about 'building' values, but values are internalised and then expressed. You can no more instil a value than you can instil a morality. And you can no more create a culture than you can create your child's personality.
What you can do is create an environment that positively fosters the growth of a specific cultural reality, and you do this by creating conditions that allow the ideal culture to grow. In other words, if you want a culture of trust and support, you don't set a bunch of policies and procedures, but, rather, you push decision making to the lowest necessary level, and you let people make decisions in an environment that doesn't punish them for making decisions. And so on.
If you want an agreed set of organisational values, then you need to make sure you know what the organisation's founders and members believe. Beliefs inform value structures, and values are highly inflexible.
For example, I may have a value that rewards only excellent work (skills-defined, not 'time in grade'), Mason wrote, but if your value system says that longevity is better than just the accumulation of skills, you will work in ways which reinforce your value system, regardless of my opinion.
If you want to set up the conditions for a positive cultural reality, you need to make sure that the organizational members (top to bottom) have at least similar value systems, and then, when you hire, when you train, when you manage, when you decide, you need to reinforce those values.
Eventually, when the culture arises organically (as it will; all organisations have a culture), it will be in line with the members' beliefs. If you've done your job well (actually, if the organisational leaders have been honest, and truly have values consistent with your ideal, the culture will be consistent with organisational values.
Organisational culture is tricky, Mason concluded, it's like trying to pin jelly to a wall. But it can be done, if you understand that culture is, and culture becomes; it cannot be manufactured.
WarmUp® – Hard-wired hunter-gatherers
Nigel Nicholson, a professor of organizational behaviour at London Business School, is an evolutionary psychologist. He's written a book (Executive Instinct: Managing the Human Animal in the Information Age) that builds a compelling case for what seems a pretty right-brain view of leadership, motivation and behaviour.
As Fast Company (issue 40, p100) reviewer Keith Hammonds puts it "the essential message of Executive Instinct, Nicholson's chaotic but appealing discourse on organizational behaviour, is this: We human beings are just what we were 100 centuries ago … animals, genetically designed in body and mind for survival in the wild."
Trouble is, things have changed a lot in those 10,000 years, and we haven't kept up. Here we are, racing into the Information Age. If not obsolete, then at least out of place. Fish out of water ... hundreds of miles from the nearest pond.
Evolutionary psychology asserts that our minds are not so much culturally conditioned as they are hardwired to survive and reproduce. The "profile of human nature," Nicholson writes, "was fully delineated long before the dawn of recorded civilization."
Nature versus nurture – the old argument, but applied to the workings of business organizations. It's a troublesome thesis because most of us believe in the possibility of self-improvement. As reviewer Hammonds puts it – we mostly believe that with the right parenting, a great education, and lots of hard work, anyone can grow up to be president. It's the American way.
On no, says Nicholson (who's not, apparently, an American). Sure, we can shape behaviour, "but only within the limits set by the human design." A design purposed more for brute survival than for a life of sweet reason. We seek out challenging situations for psychic buzz. At the same time, we feel a strong aversion to loss. We judge people and situations quickly, and innately see others as being either in or out of our group.
Our work lives are dominated by these forces, Nicholson says. We fiercely avoid failure, yet we can be induced to take risks when faced with highly tangible threats. We enjoy gifts of strategic capability, but we are hamstrung by our capacity for self-delusion. Take, for example, the question of leadership. "It is now time," Nicholson writes, "to return to the idea that some people are simply born with potentialities for leadership."
By accident or design, Nicholson says, people who want to be leaders are more likely to display the alpha-male biochemical profile – elevated levels of testosterone and serotonin. And those who succeed as leaders typically want to dominate and to achieve through competitive striving. They have natural ability, and they are graced with strong physical constitutions.
He's bleak on the gender front as well. We are who we are. Business organizations are male in design and in operation because men are genetically programmed to dominate. "Our instincts are pre-tuned to those behaviours that bring about good reproductive outcomes: for men, winning status in competition with other men; for women, having good networks and the emotional radar to enhance choice," He says. And as long as the profit motive drives how we organize, male values will continue to predominate.
Fun, but is this useful? Do we just succumb to the inevitable, say 'that's life' and get on with running sophisticated information-rich organisations that increasingly rise and fall on the use of human capital – with dysfunctional hunter-gatherer sensibilities?
Nicholson has a better idea: Accommodate reality by changing the workplace. Because "modern business often tries to suppress or ignore" natural human impulses, organizational dysfunction is more or less the rule. Fix that disconnect, and we make the workplace happier and more productive, he says:
- Since emotions are primary in our neural circuitry, businesses must stop suppressing emotions. "People from the top down must be allowed to be open about their feelings."
- And since we're programmed to operate best in clans of 7 family members, and in broader networks of no more than 150 people, we must create more intimate communities within corporations.
- Attract and retain women by making hierarchies more flexible; but
- Hierarchy remains essential to smooth organizational functioning.
- We human beings are peculiar creatures, and we don't change easily. Better to acknowledge that and play to our strengths.
- We crave social interaction, will always need contexts in which we can work and interact face-to-face. That's why the organization in its traditional form will persist in the face of disruptive information technology.
Ten minute MasterClass® - Quota-driven behaviour
So while we're knee-deep in the soft stuff, and clipping happily from the discussion-list e-stream, let's take a look at another behavioural question.
On the Deming Electronic Network, frequent contributor Eugene Taurman recently asked: >> Does anyone know of a credible article on the behaviours that quotas cause at the management level? There is plenty written on the damage of piecework but I do not know of anything on management staff quotas <<
Quick aside: quotas (or just about any competitive workplace practice) are anathema to Demers (the disciples of W Edwards Deming). They drive perverse behaviours, damage collaboration and collegiality, lead to sub-optimisation of work systems and subvert effective team-work.
David Chase of the California Lottery responded (summarised): If the main problem with management quotas is the corrosive effect of the competition that quotas produce, take a look at Alfie Kohn's book: No Contest: The Case Against Competition. Alfie Kohn eloquently argues that our struggle to defeat each other – at work, at school, at play, and at home – turns all of us into losers. Contrary to the myths with which we have been raised, Kohn shows that competition is not an inevitable part of human nature. It does not motivate us to do our best... Rather than building character, competition sabotages self-esteem and ruins relationships.
I find Kohn's book Punished By Rewards to be an excellent resource for refuting the conventional wisdom on rewards and recognition programs, Chase wrote, I'm confident that you'll find similar value in No Contest.
Another aside: At the recent summer Olympics, New Zealand did rather badly in the medal count (although 'badly' is relative. Per capita, we beat heaps of much bigger nations. It's just that we're accustomed to boxing above our weight – watch David Tua's fight in Vegas this weekend). When the finger-pointing began, our schools were blamed. They discourage competition and want to make everyone a winner, people said. Look at junior team sports, they said – not allowed to keep score because then one team 'loses.' No wonder we can't produce Olympic winners, and no wonder the All Blacks (the national rugby team) get beaten occasionally. There's no mongrel in the national psyche any more. We're turning out wooses! Want your editor's view? Seems to me that if life is about winning and losing, then pretending otherwise to kids does them a disservice. Ouch! Alfie Kohn just whacked me!
James Robert Crow also ventured an opinion (off-topic, but illustrative): I addressed this in a paper called Institutionalized Competition and its Effects on Teamwork (May/June 1994, in The Journal for Quality and Participation), he said. Here's some of the problems with quotas:
- they place people in competition with each other – especially where there are individual quotas. If individuals don't hit quota they don't share in the bonus, placing them in direct competition. One result – optimizing individual production at the expense of the organization. The goal should be for the organization to win, not the component parts.
- they limit sales/production. People will want to be at quota, but not very far over. Why? Typically next year's quota is based on this year's results. Why knock yourself out.
- they tend to bunch sales/production toward the end of the month or quarter.
The quota system was driving the behaviour. 70% of this firm's sales came in the last two days of the month. How did this affect things like shipping? It drove them crazy. So what was going on. According to salesman, “The sales people are making sales all month long, but they don't turn their sales in until they are sure that they can hit quota. The ideal is to hit quota, maybe go a little over, then carry a 10 to 15% cushion into the next month. The quota system is limiting sales. "I believe this is what we call sub-optimization," JRC wryly noted.
Quick case study® – QUALITY MANAGEMENT TRENDS
Research by the Institute of Management and British Quality Foundation, reported at Anbar Management Now reveals that 83% of managers predict more emphasis on the quality of their organizations' products and services over the next three years. Some 69% of managers say their organization has introduced a quality programme in the last three years. More than three-quarters of managers believe that their organizations' commitment to quality is long term and that they expect their quality programme to last indefinitely.
There is also consensus that quality needs to be led from the top and absorbed into the company culture to become part of everyone's day-to-day behaviour. Some 45% of managers believe that the board and top team should take responsibility for quality-improvement programmes, and only 19% think it should be left to quality specialists.
The greatest obstacles managers say their organizations face in trying to implement quality programmes are cost, too much emphasis on short-term goals, lack of time and lack of top-management commitment. Around 45% of UK organizations are Investors in People, 42% have or are registered for ISO 9001 and the Business Excellence model has been adopted by 15%.
Only 3% of managers say their organization fails to measure whether quality levels have improved. Over half of managers say the main method used is customer satisfaction, followed by monitoring performance targets (30%) and measuring failure or reject rates (30%).
Managers are most likely to seek advice from customers (60%), colleagues (56%) and professional bodies such as the Institute of Management (55%). The Internet is a favoured information source for 47% of executives. These findings are backed up by many of the abstracts recently added to the Anbar International Management Database. For example, Sun et al. find a very close relationship between employee involvement and the successful implementation of total quality management, while Stamatis argues that it is not evaluative tools and techniques that improve quality but an organization's commitment to make quality a priority.
Meanwhile, companies which use progressive human resource management practices usually perform better than those which do not, according to research carried out at Birkbeck College, for the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
A key element is making efficient use of new technology. Some HR departments use information technology simply to replicate what is in the filing cabinet, and limit IT use to the routine administration of payroll and benefits. Others, in contrast, apply information systems in recruitment, selection, training and development. Sophisticated use of information systems is most likely to be found when the HR department is no longer struggling to be recognized by the rest of the organization.
Guest et al. identify 18 key HR practices that have been associated with high-performance or high-commitment management. The authors' survey of chief executives and HR managers finds agreement that effective human resource practices are linked to good organizational performance. Surprisingly, however, there is little evidence that this belief is translated into practice on the ground. The article discusses the gap between rhetoric and reality and describes the progressive HR practices at Peugeot, Cummins and Egg.
Looking after you – stress in the workplace
Stress is the biggest health risk in the workplace today, according to the Institute of Employment Consultants (writes David Pollitt in another clip from Anbar Management Now).
Uncertainty is one of the greatest drivers of workplace stress. A poll of 500 job candidates by recruitment consultancy The Charles Fellowes Partnership showed that thinking about quitting is more stressful than getting married, moving house and having a baby. Only the trauma of family bereavement ranks higher than pre-resignation nerves.
Former Unilever executive Peter Bolt (in The Whole Manager) says that while uncertainty is stressful, it can be minimized if you manage yourself. Use a diary to map out what needs to be done each day. Set aside time to think through ongoing problems. Planning, Bolt says, provides the self-confidence needed to succeed without sacrificing integrity, home life or self-respect.
Ellis (see the article for the reference) agrees that uncertainty and poor work design are major stressors. Plus long hours, low job satisfaction, temporary contracts, poor relationships with colleagues and the rise of home working.
Poor workplace design may also be a major factor. Noise, agitation and visual distractions don't help.
In Shedding Your Management Worries, eCompany writer Penelope Trunk illustrates one manifestation of stress at work. Here's the article, intact:
Sharon is running her fingers through my hair. She says, "I was thinking of telling you this last time, but I wanted to wait. Now I think I have to tell you, though: You're losing your hair." I sit up straight in her chair. My pile of Internet magazines crashes on the floor, and everyone in the salon turns around.
I said, "Women lose their hair? Where? Where am I losing?"
She lifts up hairs on the crown and says, "Here."
She cuts so hair fluffs, and she sells me squirting stuff to make the fluff hold. She explains that if you stop using Rogaine all your hair falls out, so Nioxin is better to try first. I buy the Nioxin three-step process for $150.
I call work to say I am stuck in a meeting. Then I surf at home. I search "bald" NEAR "women." I search "hair loss" NEAR "women." It is clear that women lose hair from stress. I search "hair" AND "stress" AND "recovery," because when it comes to determining a prognosis, AltaVista never lies.
Nioxin comes with a drain catch thing so you can count hairs as you lose them. I install the drain catch and wash. I count the hairs and put them in an envelope. I label the envelope with a description of the events from the day before.
At work, I keep my head high. I try not to sit at meetings. I pull hairs out of the business plans before I send them out. No one says anything like "I thought you had things under control, but I see you're shedding from the stress of financing." If I were a man, I could act as though the hair loss is genetic. I am not used to having personal problems that I cannot hide: When I have cramps, I announce that I have a VC meeting and disappear from the office.
I sort through my envelope collection looking for signs. I notice that the night I stayed up until 4 a.m. rewriting the marketing plan, I lost an average of 20 more hairs the following three days.
I can't imagine how people run Fortune 500 companies if I am losing my hair over a startup. I flip through magazines -- looking for signs of mass hair loss. Carly Fiorina's hair is flat. Maybe it was curly before Lucent. Maybe Doug Ivestor lost his job because he didn't stress enough and that's why he still has his hair. Maybe Larry Ellison wears a toupee.
At a party paid for by an Internet company that no one thought had money to throw a party, I want to tell my friends that I am so stressed about work that I am losing my hair, which is making me stressed even more. But my friends are mostly in the Internet industry, and they are impressed that I have a good title at a good company and a good wardrobe from my good salary. I will not be impressive if I let people know I am stressed. That's the thing about running a company: No one wants to hear that you're stressed, because then they have to be stressed.
So I tell the management team not to worry about the stock plan because we're redistributing shares before the next round of funding. I do not tell the management team that we're not sure how we'll do this because we're not sure if it's legal. Ten more hairs in the drain catcher.
I go back to Sharon. I ask her if the Nioxin is helping. She says no. She asks if I've decreased my stress. I say no. I say it's getting more and more stressful. She says I am making a choice to lose my hair. I tell her I am making a bet that I will be able to sell the company before anyone notices that I have a stress problem.
She cuts fluffier and the race is on.
File size 26kb - formatted in html
Emailed version 1
~ \\\\ //// ~
Emailed version 1
~ \\\\ //// ~